This is topic Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000218
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-16-2001, 12:46 AM:
What a great film!You get dropped into the story a bit quickly and some of the secondary characters don't get developed very well, but for the most part, you needn't have read the book to follow the story. I saw this with several other people and I was the only one who had read the book.
I think, though, that some of the younger viewers may find a few of the scenes kind of disturbing.
Posted by Will Morrow (Member # 792) on 11-16-2001, 05:39 PM:
Not-So-Great
I expected more. I am a "Virgin" to the Harry Potter phenomenon, having not read any of the books. I thought the special effects were done very well. I thought the scenery was beautiful. It was too long though. They spent too much time showing us scenery. I tried to think of this in terms of being a youngster, and I think I would get bored with it. I was bored myself, and I like to think my attention span extends beyond that of a child. (I could be wrong)
Too much hype, not enough action. 6/10 from little ol' me.
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-16-2001, 07:05 PM:
This is one of the few films that remains faithful to the book. Special effects are terrific and a soundtrack to match. Brilliantly cast, and the kids were great. Take a bow, Mr. Columbus, you're right on the money (no pun intended)! I was impressed. You can expect a lot of repeat business with this film. It's going to have great legs.
Posted by Frank Aston (Member # 478) on 11-16-2001, 07:58 PM:
There's a bit a controversy about print/image quality.Personally, I feel that everything that appears on the screen is deliberate. The film has a wonderful, one-off, warm, magical feeling which is captivating audiences.
I saw this two and a half hour movie with loads of kids, some of them very small, and they were good as gold laughing and shrieking in all the right places.
All credit to DoP John Seale and his team, also the labs and the print graders.
"It's always better on the big screen".
Frank.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-17-2001, 09:28 PM:
As I watch the crowds come and go, I give it three weeks (maybe 4) and it'll be ready for the scrap pile.Paul
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 4594) on 11-18-2001, 12:28 AM:
I liked this movie alot. As an adult, I didn't think it was too long, it just seemed to fly by. As for too much scenery, I didn't think so...it was supposed to be like that, just part of the magic. I have never read the book but this movie did push me to go buy the second.
Posted by Glenda Cockrum (Member # 542) on 11-18-2001, 10:22 AM:
This is a multi-part review; a review of the movie , the presentation and the staff, all the things that combine to make a great "movie experience".
I saw "Harry" on Saturday at Loew's Waterfront in Pittsburgh. My 11 year old daughter and I attended a fund raiser for a local children's center, they sold 500 tickets, basically bought out 3 screens. All attending in our auditorium really enjoyed the film, great responses , laughter and gasps in all the right spots, wild applause at the end. I had a great time at this movie, very well done special effects. I knew what to expect since we have read all 4 books with my daughter.
Presentation.... well not too impressive. I know that stadium seating makes some seats really poor, but we sat almost dead center on mid level, and the screen was still out of focus for us. Really bad splicing at all reel changes, very sharp jumps. And bright yellow/white breaks at other splices. Sound was so-so, some bad spots in the "surround" during the "quidditch" match.
The staff at Loew's was really on the ball! Great service, they ran themselves ragged keeping up with the fund raiser event. The large side lobby was reserved for us,all 500 of us, mainly children in costume! The children's center brought in magicians, owls from the Aviary, snakes and other small animals from the zoo, as well as having tables loaded with cookies, muffins coffee, etc... Loews staff handled all the serving with graciousness, friendliness and a very positive staff attitude. Great teamwork, they all deserve a very big pat on the back and whatever Loews does to "reward" or thank their employees and manangers.
Posted by Christopher Santapaola (Member # 1015) on 11-19-2001, 05:23 PM:
Having read the first two books in the series so far and being more than half way through the third I can say that the pure loyalty to the plot and the honor of the work makes this film worth seeing alone. Beyond that the story is excellent and shown well. The scenes in the film are just as I had envisioned them to be, I loved the whole thing. Probably the best movie this year, the only comparible movie this year was Shrek and in my opinion Harry Potter by far out did Shrek. On a side note there was a few scenes cut out of the story such as other Quittich matches that would have added even more flavor but then who knows, it probably would not have fit on the platter. 
------------------
-Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that walks, and struts its hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 11-19-2001, 05:47 PM:
I really liked this movie. What makes the Harry Potter books enjoyable is the time Harry, Ron, and Hermione spend together (especially the arguments Ron and Hermione get into) and they captured that perfectly in the film. All three of those kids were cast extremely well and cute as can be. I was a little disappointed that Peeves the Poltergeist didn't make an appearance or two (he may very well have in the First Banquet, but I'm talking about his having interaction with the kids), but with a two and a half hour long run time what can you do. Alan Rickman didn't have much to do as Potions Master Snape but he does it well and is sure to be better as the rest of the Potter series is translated onto the big screen.
I didn't think the effects were too swinging although I did think there were some really cool moves in the Quidditch match. The CGIed creatures looked pretty stupid, of course the kids won't mind. But the sets and the scenery were gorgeous. And John Williams' music makes the settings all the more magical. I'll admit I was nervous that Chris Columbus was doing this movie, but he actually restrains his normal hectic and ridiculous situational comedy making it his best film to date. I'm so glad it wasn't Home Alone in a castle. Check it out. ------------------
The man with the magic hands.
Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 11-20-2001, 11:17 PM:
i didn't read the book, but i heard it stuck to the book pretty well. As far as the movie itself, kinda dragged out. If only they could have condensed it into 2 hours at most. It seemed to go on and on...But, it was well made. ------------------
...My brain's always wrapped...
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-21-2001, 06:49 PM:
I went to the nice plex in
the next town last night to see Harry Potter. They were having a slow
evening compared to the last weekend or the next. It looked like the carpet
had been marinated in soda pop and shoe grunge. If you hadn't figured it out
from the papers, Harry Potter took off like no film in history. It shattered
every existing record in the first weekend save one. Now all it has to do is
make $600 million worldwide to topple Titanic for the all time lead. (A
difficult road, that most prognosticators say won't happen.)So how did I like Harry Potter? I liked it but didn't love it. I thought
they did a fine job to excellent job of recreating the book for the screen.
But I like the density of the books better. I don't think the film robs one
of anything. The actors they use for every character were well chosen. But
the children do present a problem. The one they chose for Ron was perfect.
The actor they chose for Harry was just a bit flat and the actress they
chose for Hermione was just a bit too beautiful. The special effects were
good in that sort of Steven Spielberg/George Lucas sort of way but I found
them to be non important. The story is about the interactions between the
characters.
Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 11-21-2001, 08:50 PM:
Large Ian pegged it. Well crafted, true to the book, entertaining, but lacking in magic of its own. If there ever was a tight book adaptation, this is it.We went to a local Regal to see it, just because the showtime fit for us. The theatre was in shell-shock. Tickets were being sold inside at the pick-up desk, the concession stand looked like it had been wiped out of food, and it was obvious that second line staff were working. The auditorium stank, the five ads and five previews were tedious, but the film was presented well and the rugrats in attendance were totally silent during the entire film.
There were less than 20 people in the audience, but I'm sure it will do good turkey day business.
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 11-21-2001, 09:50 PM:
Many of the newscasts are showing the lineups of parents with VERY YOUNG kids awaiting the show. Now I haven't seen it, or read the book, but for those who have, is the movie really scary for kids?
What age do you suppose the "cut-off" is???
Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 11-23-2001, 05:11 AM:
Harry Potter: hhhmmmmmm.I loved the photography and direction. Not having read the book I was very happy with the way they unfold the story. I don't think they hyped the stone enough, It didn't make me care enough if the stone was protedted or not. That aside I believe they made a blockbuster of a film. Did anyone notice how particular the print was, or how unobtrusive the reel changes were, absolutly the best 2 prints I've built up this year. It almost made me think the distributors cared.
I give it 4 stars for fun. 
------------------
I believe comic heroes walk the earth
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-24-2001, 09:52 PM:
Attendance: Regal River Oaks Cinema 8, Decatur, AL, 2001/11/23 19:20, Auditorium 6 (DTS, 40 foot screen in scope mode)I waited a week after opening weekend to see this movie because I felt I would enjoy it the most seeing it in this particular auditorium of this particular theatre, in a somewhat less crowded atmosphere. Even during the second week, there were approximately 150 people in this showing, with the other smaller auditorium selling out.
I was well-pleased with the movie, and highly recommend it. I don't really understand why some people are making such a fuss over the wizardry that is the subject matter. I am a Christian and seeing this movie is not going to change my ideas and opinions about reality. People are forgetting that FICTION does not have to be related to reality. It's just a STORY, which is fictitious, and people should just see it as such, just as the monsters in Monsters, Inc. Why aren't the people making controversy over Harry Potter making a fuss over the monsters? Silly, isn't it.
Harry Potter had many great special effects. Of course, nearly all movies have computer-generated special effects of some sort. Having never read the "Harry Potter" book, I cannot comment on the movie vs. the book. The movie seemed a bit long to me, but I never got bored or impatient while watching.
Someone earlier asked about scenes that scared the kids. I remember the kids in the audience being disturbed the most by these three scenes:
1. In the restricted section of the library, the opening of one book revealed a screaming face that jumped out of the page.
2. The three-headed dog on top of the trap door attacking the kids
3. The snake-like vines the kids encountered after falling through the trap door.
The presentation was perfect. (Film done right). Regal River Oaks is the best place to find out how good 35mm film can look when presented well. In contrast to what some of you experienced at other theatres, even with crowds showing up, this theatre was very clean, both in the lobby and auditorium.
------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 11-25-2001, 10:04 PM:
Saw this on Thanksgiving. I've never read the books, but I enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it was too long. Those in my family who have read the book said they left alot out. I liked it. A brilliant score (the Philly Inquirer had the nerve to say it was overscored) Mr. Williams has once again outdone himself. On a purely technical level this movie was still superb, filmed in scope (not super35) I saw it with SDDS played in 8 channels, sounded fan-bloody-tastic.5 out of 5
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-25-2001, 10:20 PM:
Last run on Saturday night in one of our theaters, the house count was 16. Kind of scary....how is the rest of the world doing on it?
Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 11-25-2001, 10:24 PM:
Hope business perks up again.
I play movieboss and thanks to this movie I now have digital sound on all six of my screens.
Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 12-17-2001, 10:04 PM:
I thought Harry Potter was shot in Super 35mm, because when the headlamp for the Hogwarts Express train shines into the camera, it makes a circular flair instead of an elliptical flare. Also, lights out of focus in the background make rounded triangle shapes instead of vertical ellipses.
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 12-21-2001, 08:19 AM:
Attendance: Coburg Drive-in Theatre Screen, Screen 3 Friday December 21 2001. Weather: overcast but no rain. Patronage: mostly full. Car: Toyota Corona 1984. Meal: lukewarm hot dog with tomatoe sauce, jam donuts (yum), popcorn & hot chocolateOh yes.. the movie...
I should preface my remarks by stating that I have not read the book so I am judging the film purely on its entertainment value as a film.
I thought the film was ok but would not win any awards. It had a good plot but the Batman style music and overdone special effects disappointed a little. The children' acting seemed a bit dull and unconvincing. At times I was left with the impression that the film was a stroll between film sets.
In terms of film-making there was not a lot of new ideas and this made the film a bit bland.
To its credit however the film did engage the audience for 2 1/2 hours without bogging down.
Verdict: 7 stars out of 10.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-18-2002, 09:55 AM:
I showed this movie to 5 friends last Saturday night on my 57 inch Sony rear projection HDTV-capable and the movie was a blast. It was only the second time I'd seen it, and I think I enjoyed it more on the second viewing. I caught a lot more of the humor.I think the "Chocolate Frog" should have been "Crunchy Frog". There was another "half Monty-Python reference" I caught during the movie that I would have made complete, but I can't remember what it was. 
My friends, some of whom hadn't yet seen this movie, had a blast watching it. One even emailed me telling me how much he enjoyed it. I remember some controversy about the wizardry in the movie, but all 6 of us at this get-together were Christians from the Baptist Student Center on campus and I heard no complaints.
If you haven't yet seen this movie, get the widescreen version of the DVD and watch it on a progressive 16:9 set. It won't be as good as 35mm film done well, but it can really look great. It's a great movie.
Even on the second viewing, even through the movie was 2 1/2 hours, I never got tired or impatient watching. Nobody else seemed to, either.
------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-18-2002, 10:22 AM:
Evans said: "If you haven't yet seen this movie, get the widescreen version of the DVD and watch it on a progressive 16:9 set. It won't be as good as 35mm film done well, but it can really look great. It's a great movie."If you don't believe "Film Done Right" or "Digital Done Right" are important to the future of the theatre industry, watch a movie on a high-end home theatre system to see and hear the REAL competition for the audience. Theatres MUST have better presentation quality than today's (or tomorrow's HD) home theatre systems. IMHO, scratched prints or 1.3 megapixel displays are not up to the task.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion